[NA] Online Fax Services

AggieMike88

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
20,803
Location
Denton, TX
Display Name
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Home Airfield
KDTO (Denton Enterprise)
Even in this day and age of the internet, smart phones, and free email boxes, I still have way too many customers who want to do business by fax machine. Plus there are occasions where I need to get a customer's signature on a document or order form that I send to them.

So I need a fax solution other than a machine that eats up paper, cartridges, and my electrical bill. And doesn't rely on the machine working, and having said paper, cartridges, and electricity in enough abundance to receive the transmission.

Besides eFax.com and TrustFax.com, are there any other preferred online fax vendors?

I need a solution that 5 folks can access to send and receive and do so without a complicated process.

I don't mind paying a reasonable subscription fee, but prefer a "flat rate" versus an "$XX.xx for the first YYY pages, then Z.zz after that".

All ideas and solutions are welcome.
 
In the past I used rightfax with excellent results. The fax comes right to my mobile device as an attachment.
 
I've been using RapidFax for about 4 years with no problems. It is cheap, with a very basic interface, and the address book isn't very good, but it works and has been reliable. As far as access for muliple folks, so long as you give everyone the same access login, and don't mind if everyone can see all the incoming faxes, then it is easy (just set up an email dedicated to the fax and everyone gets access to that email address).

Jeff
 
I use myfax. Works as advertised. Still have a machine for outgoing faxes as it is faster to just throw ssomething on the machine and punch in some numbers rather than logging into a webssite to upload a scanned documents. Savings on toner for not printing junkfaxes pays for the service.
 
I use HylaFAX and Asterisk, and a VOIP. Incoming and outgoing FAX via email. Costs me nothing extra for the line; I automatically detect incoming FAX calls so just give my regular number for voice and FAX. A FAX call is never more than a couple of minutes, so they're all under $.03 and I never have to print anything.

It's maybe not the right solution for everyone, but it works really well and costs zip to implement (other than time).
 
You must not be using G.729 compression on the VoIP line if fax is passing through it okay. Gotta watch that when trying to fax over a VoIP analog line. Compression will trash the fax tones. G.711 will sometimes pass fax and sometimes at a lower speed if latency and echo cancellation are done right.
 
You must not be using G.729 compression on the VoIP line if fax is passing through it okay. Gotta watch that when trying to fax over a VoIP analog line. Compression will trash the fax tones. G.711 will sometimes pass fax and sometimes at a lower speed if latency and echo cancellation are done right.

I think I have to put you in contact with the folks at my VoIP provider. But now you now gave me a couple of numbers I can throw at them to make it sound like I know what I am talking about :rofl: .

What compression algorithm do you recommend to run a conventional analog fax accross a VoIP line ?
 
G.711 is an uncompressed equivalent of a POTS line. Set the fax machines to 9600 baud (usually buried in the menu somewhere) and it'll usually work. No guarantees.
 
I think I have to put you in contact with the folks at my VoIP provider. But now you now gave me a couple of numbers I can throw at them to make it sound like I know what I am talking about :rofl: .

What compression algorithm do you recommend to run a conventional analog fax accross a VoIP line ?
I'm just allowing uLaw between here and my upstream. If I recall correctly, they allow uLaw and G729.
 
G.711 is an uncompressed equivalent of a POTS line. Set the fax machines to 9600 baud (usually buried in the menu somewhere) and it'll usually work. No guarantees.

I reduced the baud already to no avail. I suspect it is the compression they are using. I'll throw the terms I learned here their way and see what I get for a response.
 
Mu-Law and A-Law are encoding algorithms for how to sample the analog into digital. G.711 calls for mu-Law encoding.

The U.S and Japan use mu-Law. Europe and most of the rest of the world use A-Law. The carriers convert it for ya if you're calling overseas via the PSTN. Most VoIP systems are mu-Law and the stuff deployed overseas works fine since both ends are the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Îś-law_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-law_algorithm

The compression and various echo-cancellation are the things that tear up fax tones. Also if a VoIP system provides "comfort noise" that can be a problem.

Packet loss and jitter will also demolish a fax call over VoIP. The technically proper way to do it is via an analog to digital converter that understands how to do T.38 protocol and a provider at the other end who also is set up for it.

(This is what Vonage does with the second analog line on their Analog Terminal Adapter (ATA) when you order a "fax" line.)

The above mentioned packet loss and jitter can still mess things up though on a call by call basis, since in many weakly designed IP networks and the Internet there's no QoS tagging to give the VoIP packets priority once they leave your gear.
 
More on comfort noise fun and games and T1 circuits:

Digital phone systems by their nature are dead silent unless audio is being received. Sample audio at something above Mr. Nyquist's calculated rate to reconstruct it successfully and pass that to the other side. No audio, send no bits.* To people who had used the old PSTN POTS analog service which had some noise on the line, it sounds "weird" or "too quiet when no one is talking".

People thought their phone call had gotten disconnected since dead silence was a sign that the call had dropped in the network in the past. People would constantly say "hello, hello?". So early VoIP engineers added "comfort noise". White noise generated at either end at a low level to make the listener know the call was still up.

Cell phones often are silent when no one is speaking and you see people doing the same thing. Some handsets generate comfort noise also. Early Cisco gear turned comfort noise on by default.

My experience with it was VoIP gateways at carriers that had it turned on in BOTH directions which would REALLY **** off the voting algorithms in the DSPs of phone conferencing systems. Especially if the conferencing system had Automatic Gain Control (AGC) enabled. The AGC would amplify the comfort noise up thinking it was someone talking with low audio and then the voting algorhythm would vote the channel/line with comfort noise into the second "talk slot". The result is you hear the speaker who's louder than the comfort noise and every time they stop talking there's a whooshing white noise sound until they start again. If the person on the line with comfort noise speaks, the whooshing goes away. Or usually more likely, multiple lines do it simultaneously and the voter algorhythm is constantly switching between lines for the second "talk slot" and popping two lines that are hissing away in together when no one is talking. It sounds like crap.

-----

*In reality you never send all zeros or all ones across a digital circuit at the low-level because in the old days you needed the voltage swings to keep the circuit timing going. There is bit-flipping going on in a T1 or any other PSTN style synchronized clock circuit at the physical level, but the devices do it and then put it back internally to the real data stream being sent. These are defined in the SF/AMI and ESF/B8ZS circuit algorhythms.

SuperFrame/Alternate-Mark Inversion, where one and zeros were called "Mark" and "Space", so inverting every other "Mark" was done to keep the voltage swing going if all ones or all zeros was sent.

Extended SuperFrame/Bit-8 Zero Suppression. Same idea after the 8-bit version of the T1 circuit was developed.

SuperFrame/AMI robbed bits to indicate alarms. Stealing the second-most-significant bit and flipping it in a pattern to tell the far-end that something is wrong with the signal received ("Yellow Alarm"). Red Alarm is a complete loss of signal, Blue Alarm is all ones being received. This allowed for troubleshooting.

ESF utilized the ability of better circuits to stay synchronized with less need for sync bits (PLL circuits originally) to move the Alarm bits out of the analog channel bits, stop bit-robbing those and rob-bits from the framing/clocking bits.

Feed an analog conference bridge fed with T1 circuits that are SuperFrame/AMI, put all 24 lines into a conference call and then whistle into a phone. The second most significant bit will be set by the high pitched tone for enough frames that the far end will think the T1 is in Yellow Alarm. A telco switch receiving Yellow Alarm is going to drop all calls on that circuit. (And long ago would have marked the circuit as down and delivered no more calls to it without manual intervention, but nowadays they reset as soon as the Alarm indication has cleared.

You just flushed your conference call. Bye! :)

SF/AMI is hard to order these days. When I started in conferencing some carriers had old gear that couldn't deliver ESF/B8ZS circuits and we had to budget to place the 24th phone line in a permanently off-hook/disabled state so the above "flush" wouldn't happen.
 
(This is what Vonage does with the second analog line on their Analog Terminal Adapter (ATA) when you order a "fax" line.)

That explains why it used to work back when everything was hooked up to a vonage box.

]
The above mentioned packet loss and jitter can still mess things up though on a call by call basis, since in many weakly designed IP networks and the Internet there's no QoS tagging to give the VoIP packets priority once they leave your gear.

Jitter as measured with mlab is between 12 and 60 msec. My uplink speed is 1Mbit.
 
I get most of my faxes in and out through RINGCENTRAL which handles all my other things (my personal follow me, by business line, and the airport telephone number).
 
That explains why it used to work back when everything was hooked up to a vonage box.

Sometimes I wish I didn't know this stuff, 'cause I learned it all the hard way. ;)

Jitter as measured with mlab is between 12 and 60 msec. My uplink speed is 1Mbit.

Not bad. On the 1MBit up circuit, the real key there is knowing no one else is uploading at the same time. If the ATA is hooked up "daisy-chain" fashion... Router->ATA->Internal network on a small office/home office network it will handle making sure the PC's don't rob bandwidth from the phones.

The problem then is that the ATA becomes a router and takes away some flexibility.

Other methods are to use a router upstream of the ATA and internal network that can give priority to the ATA for all traffic.

So T.38 for real VoIP fax support, and barring that at least one channel of G.711 (uncompressed) might work. Most providers will just call it a "fax line" and charge more for it.
 
Not bad. On the 1MBit up circuit, the real key there is knowing no one else is uploading at the same time. If the ATA is hooked up "daisy-chain" fashion... Router->ATA->Internal network on a small office/home office network it will handle making sure the PC's don't rob bandwidth from the phones.

I have tried different combos:

Cable modem-->gigabit switcch
all VoIP stuff plugged into that switch
firewall plugged into that switch.

That way the traffic doesn't have to go through the firewall.

I have also put the ATA behind the firewall.

Didn't make a difference.

Have to try daisy-chaining the ATA as the first component behind the cable modem. Not sure how that will affect the couple of static IPs that I need for some systems that sit behind the firewall. The way I understand it the ISP routes those based on the mac addresses of the equipment that is assigned those IPs, if I put the ATA/router box inbetween, I am not sure that information is passed along. I'll have to give it a try.


Other methods are to use a router upstream of the ATA and internal network that can give priority to the ATA for all traffic.

There is some QoS stuff I can set on the firewall/router.

So T.38 for real VoIP fax support, and barring that at least one channel of G.711 (uncompressed) might work. Most providers will just call it a "fax line" and charge more for it.

Well, it was supposed to be a 'fax line' from day #1.

Thanks for the pointers.
 
Have to try daisy-chaining the ATA as the first component behind the cable modem. Not sure how that will affect the couple of static IPs that I need for some systems that sit behind the firewall. The way I understand it the ISP routes those based on the mac addresses of the equipment that is assigned those IPs, if I put the ATA/router box inbetween, I am not sure that information is passed along. I'll have to give it a try.

The ATA will probably not pass the static IPs. Most ask for a DHCP address on the external interface and hand out a different range on the internal interface via DHCP.

I wouldn't bother trying it with your network. You're not doing small/home office type setup with a gig switch and a Cisco firewall.

I'd put it behind the Cisco and tell the Cisco to give it priority over all else. Sorry I'm not a Cisco-head or I'd offer some setup examples. I always have to look that stuff up.
 
What I don't get is why these touch screen devices won't let you physically sign a document like I do a credit card pad at the store?
 
I'm looking into HelloFax. I'll post an update/review when available
 
Back
Top